New Delhi: <\/em>The Supreme Court of India has allowed a transfer petition <\/a>filed by the wife, thereby shifting a matrimonial Supreme Court Transfers Husband\u2019s Case to Wife\u2019s City Again: How Indian Men Lose Jurisdictional Fairness in Matrimonial Litigation case initiated by the husband from Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh, to Bhilwara, Rajasthan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The matter arose out of proceedings instituted by the husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/strong>, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. As expressly recorded by the Supreme Court, the case was \u201cfiled by the respondent-husband for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,\u201d<\/strong> reflecting that it was the husband who first approached the court in an attempt to restore the marital relationship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the wife approached the Supreme Court seeking transfer of this case to her parental place. The Court noted that, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner\u2013wife seeking transfer of Casefrom Ujjain to Bhilwara, Rajasthan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite the fact that the husband had already initiated proceedings in a competent court, the Supreme Court observed that \u201cthough service of the respondent is complete, however no one has put in appearance on his behalf\u201d.<\/em> <\/strong>In practical terms, this often happens because husbands are already financially and emotionally drained by parallel litigation, travel costs, and repeated court dates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After hearing only the wife\u2019s side, the Court stated,<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAfter hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife, in our opinion, a case is made out for transfer of the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The main reason accepted by the Court was that<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cthe petitioner-wife claims to be permanently residing at her parental home at Bhilwara, Rajasthan, with no independent means of income or support to travel to Ujjain to attend the proceedings initiated by the Respondent and is entirely dependent, on her family\u201d.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n <\/strong>Additionally, the Court noted that four more cases are pending at Bhilwara, Rajasthan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The order further directed that<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cRecords shall be sent promptly by the Court where proceedings are pending to the transferee Court\u201d<\/em>.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n It also added that<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIn case video conferencing facilities are available in the transferee Court, the parties may be permitted to appear through video conferencing on non-effective dates of hearings\u201d,<\/em> <\/strong>and that \u201cwherever possible the cases may be assigned to one court and effort can be made to fix these cases on a single day so that the parties are not required to attend court on multiple dates\u201d<\/em>.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Finally, the Court concluded, and accordingly allowed the Transfer Petition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This order once again reinforces a harsh legal reality, even when a husband initiates proceedings to restore a marriage, he is expected to travel, adjust, and bear litigation hardship, while the wife\u2019s convenience is treated as decisive. There is no recorded consideration of the husband\u2019s financial capacity, professional obligations, or access to justice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The consistent pattern in transfer jurisprudence shows that matrimonial litigation in India continues to operate on an assumption that inconvenience to men is acceptable, routine, and legally invisible, while inconvenience to women is treated as sufficient ground to shift entire proceedings across states.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband who approaches the court seeking restitution of conjugal rights already faces social stigma and prolonged legal battles. When such cases are transferred across states, the process itself becomes punitive. This order, though legally consistent with precedent, once again demonstrates how procedural discretion disproportionately operates against men in Indian matrimonial law, reinforcing a system where access to justice for husbands becomes increasingly conditional and costly<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law & Section<\/strong><\/td> Purpose<\/strong><\/td> Effect on Husband<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 9- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Restitution of conjugal rights<\/td> Husband\u2019s case shifted before hearing on merits<\/td><\/tr> Article 139A- Constitution of India <\/a>(Transfer of Powers)<\/strong><\/td> Transfer of cases between courts<\/td> Used only for wife\u2019s convenience<\/td><\/tr> Family Courts Act, 1984<\/a> \u2013 Jurisdiction Provisions<\/strong><\/td> Governs family court jurisdiction<\/td> Husband forced to litigate in another State<\/td><\/tr> Supreme Court Directions on Video Conferencing<\/strong><\/td> Allows remote court appearances<\/td> Procedural relief, does not cure transfer prejudice<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Summary<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Counsels<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n